Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Something like that

hehehe

That sums it up great

LOLWTH

SMF....

Ok so the research says that despite the flow losses (of water) you get more O2 into the water with a venturi than by an aeration design utilising gravity (ie Franks).

Interesting.

Mind you it is kind of academic since the longer term forum members will have read the conlcusions of the (damm can't find the article review of aeration methods) report and know that paddle wheels get the most O2 back into the water.

Ok I'll blink first, whats SMF

indeed, Mylesau, truly amazing:
amazing how one can pretend
but ignore the sentence before the one quoted:

and amazing how one can continue to ignore what has been repeatedly stated:
I am not pumping water to a higher elevation
only trying to exploit all possible passive means of aeration at my disposal from the pump that is already there
this will beat the standard aerator efficiency (SAE) of all systems that do rely on extra power

frank

If your not pumping water to a higher elevation how high up is it going to be worth using a passive aerator. I have deep GB's but only need to pump 50cm from the water. It then drains from the bottom of the GB. When the pool is full that is about 10cms from the water.

SMF - it is what people call me..........Steve is my first name, but apparently it was already taken! Not surprising really, the Steve's are taking over the world!

Nice try Frank but I think all are aware of your methods of manipulation by now!


I'll ask the question I asked before - how does the water "already get there"? Do you have lots of purple frogs? Or are you pumping water inefficiently to a height that is not really required? Perhaps you need to review you "efficient" design...

I hope the MF is your middle and surname. Welcome if I haven't said it before. And I too have noticed the steve thing but kepted quiet. Just too many of them.

No arguement that the fall of the water (head loss) provides the energy for gravity aeration....

But you have to pump it to the head for it to fall....


But you are pumping it to AN elevation... certainly in your drawing.... and that elevation would appear to be "higher" than that which most people employ by putting a "venturi" into the return to their sump or tank....

A point you seem to completely overlook...



99.99% of people are employing gravity to return the water to the sump from the growbeds... utilising gravity aeration in the process...

And then employing a single pump to return to the tank... where they not only utilise gravity aeration... but incorporate a "venturi" to accentuate it...

What's the difference Frank ... you employ a pump from your sump to your upper channel... then gravity aerate through fall (head loss) and [b]accentuate that aeration with a venturi]/b]....

You just use a different venturi than other people might.... despite their henious inefficiency...

Yeah but.... You did tell Joel and the rest of us that Venturi's have no place in AP. Given that Joel is already pumping his water back to the FT that document suggests that he is going to get more aeration from a venturi on the end of the pipe than from a gravity based aeration device on the end of the pipe.

For a gravity fed aeration device to work it must pump water to a height above the FT even if that height is only say 1cm. That small increase in pumping head is going to reduce the flow produced by the pump. IF instead a venturi were placed on the end of a pipe going through the FT wall it will also reduce the flow produced by the pump. THat document suggests that since you are going to have a reduction in pump flow you will get more effcient aeration with a venturi rather than pumping to a height greater than the level of the water in the FT.

Now it might be really hard to engineer a venturi that causes a reduction in pump flow equivilent to the reduction in pump flow caused by increasing the pump height by a mere single cm but that research shows that if you could then the venturi would be more efficient.

According to that article anyway. You never know though it could be wrong,.

my system is CHIFT PIST.
I pump the water from the sump straight upwards to the return gutter that goes horizontally to the rim of the IBC
the IBC flows over through a 50 mm SLO into an upflow floating bead filter that overflows into the gutter that distributes the water over the growbeds Level in the tank is approximately 850 mm. that is also the bottom level of the distribution gutter. When pumping (each hour for 10 minutes) the level in the fish tank, the filter and the gutter slowly rises about 70 mm.
growbeds are 250 mm deep with the top at working height.
the pump is on the bottom of the sump, the stand up pipe is 1 m high and is the only piece of round tube connected to the pump. Head loss from piping is kept to an absolute minimum.
no restriction whatsoever on the pump so maximal pumping volume for the energy consumed.
level in the sump varies between 300 and 500 mm.
pump head varies between 500 and 700 mm.

Frank